11/17/2004

The mainstream media’s (MSM) moral indifference is only outdone by their telegraphed political agendas. The latest example can be contrasted in two killings: one by a terrorist, and one by a Marine (here and here) HT Stones-Cry-Out.

NBC News (owned by General Electric) is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy with their careless, tabloid-style reporting that blackballs this Marine. Instead of focusing on the murder of Margaret Hassan, the British aid worker in Iraq, they’d rather trash the Marines, who are putting their life on the line cleaning up the sewer of humanity in Fallujah and elsewhere in the GWOT.

People who train their children to become suicide bombers will do anything to kill Americans; especially Marines. They booby-trap dead bodies, trash, blow themselves up, and will use any dirty tactic to inflict terror on their enemy. Therefore, they are worthy of a "security round," instead of risking their own lives in the pipedream hopes that we can “rehabilitate him.”

The MSM will even go so far as to criticize the now famous photo of a Marine smoking, by complaining that this photo promotes smoking! So, in protest, send a case of cigarettes in a care package for a soldier in Iraq, or just adopt a soldier at soldiersangels.com and then send one of these.

11/09/2004

For some very fresh information and analysis on the Fallujah battle, look here, here and here. Also, Command Post has good coverage.

Pray for our troops. Better yet, adopt one and send a care-package. Military Ministry has some creative ways to support our troops. Chrismas is just around the corner, and there's still time to get packages to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

These are our heros; men and women who risk their lives to make life easy for us.

11/03/2004

I want liberals and Democrats to ponder this message (via FOXNEWS) from the President today, then read my previous post on “Why the Terrorist Still Think They Can Win.”

Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans. So today
I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this
nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn
it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a
new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one
Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and
work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.

Rewind yourself back to the days shortly after 9/11. You were behind the President then. Join us again in this struggle to defeat global terrorism. Stand with the President. It’s your duty.

Why won't John Kerry concede? Because his lust for power is so great that not even simple math can persuade him. He's down by 136,483 votes with 250,000 provisional votes remaining. So let's see. The campaign that wants to lead our nation can't figure out that they'd have to win 193,242 remaining votes to win Ohio. That is: s 77.3% of the provisional votes would have to have Kerry's name on them. He couldn't even do that in Massachusetts, folks.

Kerry's up by virtually the same number in Michigan (142,193), and in Pennslyvania (122,000) so why is Kerry so sure he's going to win those?

10/30/2004

More than anything, we need to get on our knees and pray for this election. The Presidential Prayer Team is doing a “Pray the Vote” campaign. Go there and sign up for their “virtual prayer rally” they’re having on Monday, 11/1. This from their website:

In this election year, the need for prayer is as great as ever. Toward
that end, The Presidential Prayer Team is encouraging prayer for the elections
through a new initiative, Pray the VoteTM. The goal of Pray the VoteTM is
simply to stimulate prayer for the fall elections. Believing that when
Americans pray we open a window for God to work in our nation, we urge you to
get involved. The right to vote—and to vote your values—is one of the most
cherished privileges of citizenship.

1 Rescue me, O LORD, from evil men; Preserve me from violent men 2 Who
devise evil things in {their} hearts; They continually stir up wars. 3 They
sharpen their tongues as a serpent; Poison of a viper is under their lips.
Selah. 4 Keep me, O LORD, from the hands of the wicked; Preserve me from
violent men Who have purposed to trip up my feet. 5 The proud have hidden a
trap for me, and cords; They have spread a net by the wayside; They have set
snares for me. Selah. 6 I said to the LORD, "You are my God; Give ear, O
LORD, to the voice of my supplications. 7 "O GOD the Lord, the strength of
my salvation, You have covered my head in the day of battle. 8 "Do not
grant, O LORD, the desires of the wicked; Do not promote his {evil} device,
{that} they {not} be exalted. Selah. 9 "As for the head of those who
surround me, May the mischief of their lips cover them. 10 "May burning
coals fall upon them; May they be cast into the fire, Into deep pits from which
they cannot rise. 11 "May a slanderer not be established in the earth; May
evil hunt the violent man speedily." 12 I know that the LORD will maintain
the cause of the afflicted And justice for the poor. 13 Surely the
righteous will give thanks to Your name; The upright will dwell in Your
presence.

10/27/2004

This just in: (11:45AM): Reuters is reporting that the Iranians favor Kerry. What a surprise!One of the most hilarious quotes is, "Kerry is unlikely to ease the pressure on Iran, which will remain a key U.S. foreign policy challenge whoever wins the Nov. 2 vote."

HOW WOULD THEY KNOW???

They go on to quote a "Conservative" Iranian representative that panders to the liberal media and left, "Conservative strategist Amir Mohebian, who advises some of Iran's top policymakers, agreed. 'We prefer Kerry because he favours diplomatic methods rather than pressure. Iran is better off if he wins.'"

Conservative??? Who are they kidding? Nevermind.

Imagine the “October Surprise” the Kerry Campaign would have if Bush’s campaign were accepting money from one of the “Axis of Evil.” It would be like Reagan accepting campaign cash from the Ruskies in 1984.

As indicated in my previous post, John Kerry has been receiving campaign cash from the Iranians. Free Republic has been tracking closely, so has Shot in the Dark, and “Give War a Chance.” I thought it was a good time to “stoke” this story, because of the latest attempt for the 3-headed monster (CBS News, NY Times, Kerry Campaign) to make an issue out of this ridiculous “disappearing weapons” story. Hugh Hewitt is “all over it,” so check out the details here.

I interviewed (via e-mail) Sara Townsley, a columnist at the Cornell Daily Sun, who wrote an article covering this story. I asked her why this story isn’t really getting traction in the Blogs, and she said:

I don't think there's anything complicated about campaign contributions from
lobbyists for the enemy, so I'm baffled at the blackout. Which is why I wrote
about it. The Cox Commission report, a Congressional investigation which
detailed how Clinton relaxed export restrictions on dual-use technologies to
China in exchange for huge campaign contributions, was buried too. I don't think
either party has clean hands, but where Republicans often give the money back
and eschew any further involvement, Democrats never do and don't even make an
effort to disguise their sympathy for enemy causes.

Sara also pointed me to an AP article, which tries to show 3rd party connections to both campaigns. The writer gleefully shares statistics that show 27 friends-of-a-friend of Bush that worked for companies who did business deals with Iran. Kerry has 12, and the writer leads you conclude that Bush is the loser. They totally neglect the DIRECT link that the Kerry Campaign has to the Mullahs, and that the cash went to the CAMPAIGN, as opposed to a business.

Rick at “Stones Cry Out” pointed me to this. If the MSM were conservative, this would be like the days of Lincoln, when treason was a hanging offense.
As usual, when facts aren’t on their side, the left must resort to hacking! I think they do it without knowing it. They’re like spin-doctor zombies! Remember Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video? So who would “Michael” be? Please leave your guess in the comments! (Terry Mcauliffe?)

10/26/2004

Some 375 Kerry supporters packed the right-field stands at Holman Stadium
yesterday, many with campaign stickers on their Red Sox shirts, jackets and
hats. The campaign handed out placards, much like the standard Kerry-Edwards
signs found at other rallies, but with a slight alteration. The new signs read:
"Kerry-Red Sox: We Believe.

10/25/2004

Ok. That was easy. It took a little longer than I thought (and a World Series 2-0 lead by the Red Sox), but Jonathan Alter of Newsweek (liberal rag) has thrown it out there. I’ll add more “links” as my prediction continues to come true; this will gain traction, folks! I should have just written the article for him, but he probably had it written before my prediction.

An AP article in the Miami Herald reports John Kerry as wearing a Red Sox hat, and offers this quote that shows that the media is anxious to make a parallel between his campaign and the Red Sox:

"They're the greatest comeback team there is," Kerry said. Asked if there were
any metaphors for his campaign, he declined to talk politics. "We're just
playing ball here tonight.” Wade said Kerry is avoiding tying his fate to the
team's because he has watched their World Series hopes dashed too many times
before.

Just wait and see if the Red Sox win! There will be PLENTY of metaphors. HA.

Just remember that if one wants to parallel this race with baseball, this race is about the President who threw a STRIKE across the plate in the 2001 World Series in Yankee Stadium in BODY ARMOR with the whole WORLD watching (Video title "The Pitch"), versus the one who threw it in the dirt at Fenway (another link) in July, 2004.

10/20/2004

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for making baseball history, who faced a 3-0 series deficit with the mighty Yankees, to win 4-3! Wow.

Now, I must predict that the mainstream media (MSM) will try to draw a parallel with the Red Sox comeback, and a comeback for John Kerry. I GUARANTEE that John Kerry will be seen in a Red Sox hat in the coming days, maybe by tomorrow. All "I told you sos" will be posted ASAP!

What’s the first thing that came to your mind when you woke learned of the first World Trade Center bombing, (here and here)? How about the Oklahoma City Bombing? I don’t know about you, but without hesitation, I thought “Radical Muslim Terrorists!” Why? Because we’ve known their tactics and motivations for over 20 years!

Instead of going after them where they hide, plan and collaborate with countries that harbor and supply them, Bill Clinton “swept things under the rug.” He used the Oklahoma City bombing as a “misinformation” campaign that protected the administration from blame. Clinton was a master at this at every level; living by the philosophy: “When you can’t take the heat, use red herrings and attack them!” Clinton could do this because the MSM was eager to help him. As an example, Clinton implicated “purveyors of hate” like Rush Limbaugh, and right-wing conservatives for the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the MSM gladly followed that “blood trail,” while ignoring the real one.

As Islamofacist terrorist were planning and establishing their networks, Clinton was helping the Chinese update their nuclear arsenal to help get re-elected with their cash. He was mired in scandal, conducting a war in Yugoslavia/Kosovo, going through impeachment, Monica, ad nauseum. For political purposes, which were the underlying justification of all of his military actions, he fired a couple of Tomahawk missiles at Bin Laden, and led a small assault in Iraq (Operation Desert Fox).

Then we finally had a serious President elected in 2000, who was handed (in addition to a vandalized White House), a very weakened military, a recession, corporate scandals, and a mess in the Justice Department, and the intelligence community. President Bush indicated that he wanted to “go after” terrorists, and he was “tired of swatting flies,” as the previous administration had done.

With all the aforementioned factors considered, Bin Laden and his minions saw a great opportunity to strike BIG. The terrorists certainly figured that we were divided, especially after the hysteria from the election in 2000. Knowing that the new administration would have a more serious doctrine against terrorism, they had to strike in the beginning of his term. They struck at a time of weakness and transition in order to undermine the new administration.

We all woke up on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 and realized the war upon us. We were united. We all knew who the enemy was. President Bush was loved and revered by over 90% of the population, and we all agreed when he said, “You’re either with us or against us.” But it wasn’t long until we were divided again! Democrats were up to their old tricks – making George Bush (and the right) the enemy instead of the terrorists.

I really believe that Osama (if he’s alive) and his minions think they can win this war. They might be right, especially when you consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:25, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.” They also know that they make the most progress when Democrats are in power (the track record speaks for itself).

I don’t think the terrorists could have possibly anticipated how divided we would be in 2004. This is very dangerous, because this plays in their favor. Let’s go back to the weeks after 9/11, when we were united; even John Kerry complimented President Bush on how he handled things after 9/11! Now is not the time to give power to a man that used the war to divide us. John Kerry is not fighting the war on Terror; he’s fighting the war against the “right,” and has demonstrated that he’ll say anything, flip and flop, and even endanger our troops to get elected. Yasser Arafat likes him These are not good men.

10/18/2004

Since the Carter administration (inflation, appeasing terrorists, asking people to sacrifice for the greater good with high taxes, high unemployment, lost ground in the Cold War), it’s obvious that the legacy’s of the democrats has been “making a mess,” and the Republicans “cleaning it up.” In the process of cleaning it up, democrats exploit the mess (with the help of the Mainstream Media), and blame it on Republicans to get re-elected

Bill Clinton, who rode the waves of the Reagan tax cuts, Cold War victory and dot-com stock-market boom, can be remembered for the following legacy of threatening metastasizing issues:

1. Terrorism
2. Pornography
3. Gambling
4. Poor education
5. Cutting the military
6. Tying the hands of the intelligence community
7. Assumed that the UN was a powerful instrument of peace, and allowed our troops to be subjected to UN commanders. Turned a blind eye to corruption, greed, racism, and genocide.

Just imagine the mess that Kerry will make, when the stakes are higher! Global tests, treating terrorism as a nuisance, higher taxes, appeasement and “peace brokering,” and a liberal agenda will surely emerge like the beast of the fever-swamp, based on his Senate record.

Bush has continued the Reagan legacy that we celebrated in July by cutting taxes, equipping and investing in our military (that Clinton ran into the ground), and promoting a “culture of life” and empowerment of the people. That’s why George W. Bush is clearly the responsible choice for 2004.

Victor Davis Hanson contrasts our choices for president. Don't miss it, even if you're mind is made up, pass it along to your friends -especially if they're getting their news from the local rag or television.

10/15/2004

Rush made the observation on his show today about that Kerry’s campaign-manager declaring Mary Cheney as “fair game,” infers that this was part of a plan of attack. This can only be re-enforced by John “say anything” Edwards’ similar blabbering in last week’s VP debate.

During the Bush/Kerry debate on Wednesday, I immediately thought to myself, “Why couldn’t he talk about people on his side of the aisle like Jim McGreevy?” Or he could have talked about personal friends of his.

The act in itself was obnoxious, especially since Ms. Cheney, although being an adult, is supposed to be off-limits to attack because she’s the child of the Vice President. But the fact that it was a cold, calculated way to antagonize the Bush-Cheney ticket is just a stunt that’s inspired by the spirit of the fever-swamp.

What John Kerry said was rooted in hatred. Instead of limiting his attacks to the Vice President, he targeted someone whom he loves – his daughter. If words were weapons, he committed a verbal “drive by shooting.”

I think of the Spiderman movies do a great job of reeling you in to dislike the “bad guys” because they don’t only target Spiderman; rather they target the ones he loves. Hopefully undecided voters will flock to Bush, due to the display of poor character on Kerry’s part.

Go to Hugh Hewitt's blog to see what other bloggers are saying. He's having a symposium on the topic

10/14/2004

This guy makes my point from the previous post perfectly! He has nothing to contribute except “Bush-hatred” and personal attacks. Even the title of his blog, "Awareness is Painful" gives him away! May I suggest a subtitle? How about, "Ignorance kills the pain."

10/13/2004

I thought the debate was good for Bush and bad for Kerry. The President was relaxed and on the offense, and showed command of the issues. I especially loved how he labeled Kerry “left of Ted Kennedy,’ and pointed out his vote AGAINST Desert Storm.

Kerry was up to his usual bag of tricks: On every question, in all three debates, Kerry acknowledges the question for 10 seconds, bash-Bush with card-stacking and red-herring techniques for 50 seconds, recite “I have a smarter, better, plan” rhetoric, then make all kinds of promises he won’t be able to keep for the remainder 30 seconds. It’s coercion and bribery in action! His true colors as a wolf in sheep’s clothing shined through when he was talking about faith and works, but somehow couldn’t correlate that to his votes on partial birth abortion. Does this guy even hear himself talk?

I liked the question about the women in their lives. Bush’s answer about learning to listen to his wife was perfect – HOME RUN. Kerry managed to show ability to laugh at himself with regards to “marrying up,” which made me laugh, but then he even managed to partially change the topic and talk about his mother. “Integrity, Integrity, Integrity.” Maybe those were his mom’s 3 last words to him. But just think of that! Why would she feel the need to say that to a grown man? That may be something you say to a 12-year-old boy. My goodness.

The President asked for your vote specifically in 2 out of the 3 debates, and John Kerry never directly “closed the sale.” If you’re reading this and are among one of the “undecided voters,” I’ve got some points that you should consider:

Are your ideas are left of Ted Kennedy’s? Can you answer that with certainty? If not, it’s worth your time to look into it. There’s too much at stake!

Don’t be hypnotized by the “Bush-hatred,” the lies about the war, the cynicism and anger from the left. Don’t be coerced and bribed by his campaign rhetoric, and the bias in the mainstream media!

I hear many people tell me, “Bush really screwed up in Iraq,” yet all they do is regurgitate the MSM’s talking points and spin. When I discuss it with them, they give me that “deer in the headlights” look, like they’ve just figured out how ignorant they really are about the War on Terror. Some fire back with empty charges and questions, usually leading off with things like, “The Iraq war is just about oil…” I just tell them, “That’s something worth looking into, don’t you think?” As soon as I answer that with some facts, we both realize at the same time that all they know about the Iraq war is that it was done for oil, and they have nothing else to contribute to the conversation. If the person is cynical, then they won’t listen, and I won’t waste my time. But if they’re open, there’s no way they’ll vote for Kerry.

Voters who are willfully ignorant and infected by the cynicism of the “fever-swamp” left are dangerous. All the cries about “Halliburton, no blood for oil, Bush lied etc.” are just tactics to attract undecided and ignorant voters. They bait with cynicism and anger, and will say, do and promise anything to get your vote.
Does his past action of coming home from Vietnam and giving aid and comfort to the enemy give you confidence in him as commander in chief?

John Kerry undermines our alliances, saying, that they are “coerced and bribed,” minimizes their sacrifice, and plays numbers games with war-death statistics – just to get your vote of course. He also says we’re in the “wrong war wrong time wrong place,” (after he was for it), minimizes the GWOT to a hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Then, he voted NO for appropriations for our soldiers so they can be equipped to fight (“before he voted for it”).

10/12/2004

Read this article by Sen. Zell Miller, who puts the war and our times in perspective (HT Realclearpolitics). A lot of men died on this island. And it turned out to be a lynchpin for our victory against the Japanese. Please refer to my previous post (map provided) about Iraq being the lynchpin of the Middle East.

There we have it! The real “glass-John” has surfaced, (HT Hugh Hewitt) and he’s smarter than ever! Just imagine Kerry and his minions in one of his spin-machine meetings, looking like the bar-scene from Star Wars, and one of his staff members says, “I know! I know! All we have to do to get a handle on this PR nightmare called terrorism is to call it a ‘nuisance’ like gambling and prostitution!” You can just hear the moans and groans. Then the staff member says cunningly, “By doing this, we effectively ‘re-package’ the war, so if we’re elected, we can go back to business as usual and focus on more important issues like prescription drugs and health care! After all, Bush has made enough progress for us to be able to turn a blind eye for a while. Just think: Then the media will turn a blind eye, and we’ll have no bad PR, no ‘body count,’ and no blood on our hands!” Then John Kerry pipes in, “AMAZING! Why didn’t we think of that 6 months ago? Bush has made enough progress for terrorism to go under the radar for a while anyway! Hey, put that guy down as a candidate for Secretary of State!”

So go ahead. Vote for Kerry. Just hope that it’s not your city that glows with the power turned off…

10/09/2004

Not much time this week, as we had a new baby boy! My wife went into labor about 2 hours after the “VEEP” debate ended, and I couldn't see telling her, "Hold on honey, let me update my blog before we go to the hospital!" I'd be in the doghouse for life. It was so obvious that Cheney “schooled” Edwards much like a well-refined NBA player (John Stockton) schools a young “talented” player (Stephan Marbury).

Remember “Glass Joe” from the video game, “Mike Tyson’s Punch out?” Well, I think Kerry is "Glass John." I think Bush finally hit Kerry’s glass jaw. We all knew it was there, Botox & all, and were anticipating a big “shatter.” He could’ve been harsher, especially in his rebuttal to Kerry’s answer to this question; the question that made the President “want to scowl”. I imagine most specifically, it was this statement by Kerry, "We were safer before President Bush came to office." Game, set, match! It's no exaggeration - this man will get us killed! So, I’ll just provide a line-by-line rebuttal (comments in fiery red) within the transcript!

QUESTION: (from Randee)

“Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.
In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?”

"Glass John" KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq...
Another condescending fallacy, and if you listen closely, it implies that if HE were president, that he’d be micromanaging EVERYTHING.…where there wasn't a threat.
Neither was Hitler, according to Neville Chamberlain! After all, why would we be inclined to believe that after being denied his imperialistic visions in Desert Storm, 12 years of violating no-fly zones, dealing under the table with France, China and Russia (in the oil for food scandal), making a mockery of weapons inspectors (with lots of help from Hans Blixx), paying suicide bombers ‘beneficiaries’ $25,000 a piece for their terrorist murders, his glowing human-rights record, mass graves, prisons with children, rape and torture rooms, gassing his own people with WMD etc. that he was suddenly rehabilitated?If he'd let the inspectors do their job...How can they do their job when they are corrupt? On top of that, don’t you think Saddam was a master at “gamming” them after 12 years??? ...and go on, we wouldn't have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden. Oh! I forgot. This war is on Osama! THE US VERSUS ONE MAN! SUPERMAN! This guy genuinely doesn’t get it. As the President said, this war is being waged in 102 countries, and our enemy are terrorists, and any person or nation that harbors or aids them. Remember when the President said that you wouldn’t hear about many of the victories? It’s because announcing them would compromise our men!Meanwhile, while Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons, some 37 tons of what they called yellow cake, the stuff they use to make enriched uranium, while they're doing that, North Korea has moved from one bomb maybe, maybe, to four to seven bombs. For two years, the president didn't even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who negotiated getting television cameras and inspectors into that reactor.
So what are we supposed to think? If Kerry were President, he would have invaded Iran, AND North Korea? Or are we supposed to think that he’s such a genius and has such a better, more ‘complicated’ plan, that he’d just bring them to their knees through diplomacy (Hat tip Little Green Footballs)? Bush clobbered him on this point, noting that Kerry wants “bilateral talks,” thus alienating China, Russia, South Korea et. al.We were safer before President Bush came to office.
The sad thing is that he really believes this! TELL THAT TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE KILLED ON 9/11! Also this was just after Clinton left office and dangerously cut the military, and turned it into a “meals on wheels” program.Now they have the bombs and we're less safe.
He said it again! I thought Madeline Albright got the job done in N. Korea…. Unbelievable. So what do we do? We've got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, Nothing like being “coerced and bribed” like France and Germany were by Saddam!who’ve been involved, in their initiative. We've got to lead the world now to crack down on proliferation as a whole. But the president's been slow to do that, even in Russia.WHAT?At his pace, it's going to take 13 years to reduce and get ahold of all the loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.
As if you can extrapolate such complicated issues! Don’t be fooled by this red herring. I've proposed a plan (yeah, just go to his website and look at that 227 word sophistry – pathetic – now look at Bush’s 2000+ word plan…)that can capture it and contain it and clean it within four years.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
And the president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon.
GOD FORBID HE CAN TAKE OUT A NUCLEAR INSTALLATION IN IRAN OR N. KOREA IN 1 SHOT!!!It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one.
HOW DID WE WIN THE COLD WAR???I'm going to lead the world in the greatest counterproliferation effort. And if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough.
Yeah. I call bunker-busters tough. You know, this is more reason why this election is the most important ever, and that our lives depend upon it. John Kerry is reckless, and WILL bring the battle to our soil and get us killed.

10/05/2004

Froggy has a very revealing post today about "the missing link." Truth is, there's nothing "missing" about it, as the "talking heads" would have you believe. Hugh Hewitt corrals the discussion about Kerry's big gaffes in the debate last week, and Shouting to the Wind has a post that’s worth reading with a cup of coffee.

Hey, a thought on last week’s debate: Now’s not the time to “go wobbly” and lose heart with criticisms of the President. This debate was about appealing to undecided voters, and Kerry’s appeal was with style, and Bush with substance. It makes you wonder if the undecided people Kerry appeals to should even vote, but that’s another story. Keep your eye on the ball, go volunteer to help the campaign, and stay “on message.”

Powerline has a great post on how the polls can be manipulated. Here it is...

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll came out this morning, and, like several others, it shows President Bush and John Kerry locked in a 47% to 47% tie, compared to an eight point lead for President Bush after the Republican convention in September.
The poll's internals are easily accessible--which is praiseworthy--so it takes only a moment to determine that the October poll sampled 34% Democrats and 29% Republicans, while the September poll sampled 33% Republicans and 31% Democrats. So it's hardly a surprise that Kerry did better in the October survey. If the pollsters sampled only Democrats, they could show that Kerry was sweeping toward an unprecedented victory.
We aren't going to be able to untangle the pros and cons of "correcting" samples between now and November; suffice it to say, however, that 4% of the population didn't abandon the Republican party for the Democrats over the last 30 days.
I also note that the proportion of liberals sampled in today's Times/CBS poll is the highest they have recorded in any Presidential poll since 1995. Maybe Kerry should be worried that the best he could manage was a tie.
It's noteworthy that all of the polls that over-sampled Republicans in September are now over-sampling Democrats in October. Is this a coincidence, or a deliberate effort to manufacture a Kerry "comeback" to generate momentum for the Democrats? One possible explanation, as least as to the Times/CBS poll, is that their September poll was taken on a Monday through Wednesday, while the poll released today was entirely done on the weekend, when pollsters know they will tend to find more Democrats at home. So was the choice of polling dates deliberate, or coincidental?
For what it's worth, those polls that weight samples to produce a consistent blend of Republicans, Democrats and independents have found little or no change since the first Presidential debate.

VP Cheney should have fun with Senator Don-Juan Edwards. It should be pure entertainment. Stay tuned for my reaction tonight.

10/01/2004

Who won? If you listened to the issues, Bush won on substance, and did a great job of framing Kerry as indecisive, having poor judgment, changing positions and sending mixed-messages. Bush made the case for his leadership. He made some mistakes, most notably, when Kerry characterized our war being against Osama Bin Laden, Bush should have emphasized that Al Qaeda is the enemy, and anyone who harbored them etc. was an enemy. This cancerous terror-network metastasized around the globe, and Saddam Hussein equipped, and harbored, them, and shared their cause of Global Jihad.

Now, in order to gain some strategic perspective, let’s pull out a map of the Middle East (go ahead). Bush said shortly after 9/11 that the axis of evil is Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iraq and Iran were obvious state sponsors of terror, and North Korea has the ability to manufacture and proliferate nuclear weapons. Our strategy was to achieve victory with minimum loss of life and limb. In order to do that, we needed to crush the breeding ground for terrorists in Afghanistan. But first, we made quick allies with Pakistan (highlight Pakistan on the map). Months later, when we got Afghanistan under control, (now highlight it in on the map with Pakistan) it was time to take the next step.

For strategic and economic reasons, Iraq was the obvious next step. Now highlight Iraq. Oh, and highlight Libya too, who as “turned in” their WMD program. Now, look at your map. The terrorists are desperate to see us fail, which is why they’re crossing the borders (From Iran and Syria, none the less). Thankfully, their concentrating in the “Suni triangle,” and we’re shooting them like fish in a barrel!

Guess who’s shaking in their boots? All this to say, what if we may win the War on Terror losing less than 2000 lives, and not having to fire a shot in Iran or Syria? Iran is STARVING for a democratic revolution, and they’ll have a new democracy on either side of them in (Iraq and Afghanistan). As for Syria, chances are that they will fold without a fight (Sec. Powell has been over there lately as a dove, warning of the hawk…).

With respect to style, Kerry was smooth, but had a “glass jaw” on substance, and continued his shameless politicization of the war. He even said, “Help is on the Way?” Does this guy have an original thought of his own?

Bush had his “ums,” “ahs” and pauses, and invented a new adverb, “forciferously” when discussing staying on the offensive in Iraq. He also seemed a bit annoyed, but I think he was passionate, with a hint of frustration. It was hard to take Kerry seriously; Kerry’s intent was to throw him off, and introduce fabrications a red-herrings.

I hope you were able to resist the temptation to listen to the “talking heads” tonight after the debate. There’s no opportunity to talk through the issues on the television or in newspapers – just spin. Don’t let them tell you what you think. Read the blogs, and be informed. There’s a war of information going on, and bad info hurts the War on Terror and weakens our resolve.